He might have more trade value than you expect.
We continue with our “keep or trade” look at potential trade chips for the Pittsburgh Penguins by examining the case of forward Kevin Hayes.
Previous entries:
The Penguins’ addition of Kevin Hayes should have been a pretty good window into what their goals and expectations for the 2024-25 season were going to look like.
The main purpose of the trade was not necessarily about putting together the best possible team this season (even if he did seem to be a marginal upgrade over some of the bottom-six options from a year ago), but the ability to add a future second-round draft pick from a team that might not be very good in the coming seasons.
It started off as a 2025 second-round pick, but the Penguins traded that pick (and a 2026 fifth-round pick) back to the Blues (so they could sign their offer sheets with former Edmonton Oilers restricted free agents Philip Broberg and Dylan Holloway) in exchange for a 2026 second-round pick and a 2025 third-round pick.
Since the Blues were only paying half of Hayes’ $7 million cap hit per season, the Penguins eventually added what should be pretty early second-and third-round picks over the next two years for nothing more than taking on a $3.5 million salary cap number this season and next season.
The question now is whether or not they can add to that return by flipping Hayes again at the deadline.
He might actually have some value.
The argument for keeping him
Even if you conclude the Penguins are rebuilding or re-tooling, they still have to put an NHL roster on the ice next season. Somebody has to be out there, and it can not just be all young players free agent reclamation projects around Sidney Crosby and Evgeni Malkin. Hayes is still a serviceable NHL player, and his salary cap number for one more season would not be overly problematic. You would also still have the opportunity to flip him at that trade deadline as a rental.
He might not be a game-changer, but he will still probably score you 14-18 goals and can play some different roles throughout the lineup. There is some value in that.
Even if the Penguins did trade Hayes this season they would probably sign a comparable player in the offseason to fill that spot that they could also flip at next year’s deadline.
With the salary cap increasing, and with the way free agency already works, a comparable player will almost certainly cost you way more than $3.5 million on the open market.
If you are going to do that again anyway, you already have that guy on your roster.
The argument for trading him
It is not complicated. He is 32 years old, is not part of the long-term outlook, and will likely not be a Pittsburgh Penguin the next time the team is seriously competitive. If there is a market for him, you have to explore it. If you can get a respectable offer for him, you have to take it.
I do think there could be a market for him.
There is cost certainty with his contract through the end of next season, and he can provide some depth scoring. I wouldn’t use my last salary retention spot on him if I were the Penguins, and they probably shouldn’t need to because his salary cap number isn’t that prohibitive given that the Philadelphia Flyers are still paying half of it.
Going back in time my initial reaction to the Hayes acquisition was to be underwhelmed. But I was looking at it strictly from a “does this get the Penguins closer to the playoffs?” mindset.
That was probably never the goal.
When you look at it from a more big picture outlook they have already picked up two draft picks for simply using some already empty salary cap space. I get it. Especially if, and when, they can add another long-term asset as part of it.
Trade or keep?
This is a lot easier than the Rakell decision, because whether it is at the trade deadline this year, over the offseason, or at the trade deadline next year they are almost certain to trade Hayes at some point.
I would not expect a significant return, but if you can land yourself another second-round pick or comparable value you have simply added multiple assets to your organization for …. nothing. That is smart business for a re-tooling team, and goes back to the argument that Kyle Dubas has done a really, really good job when it comes to the big-picture moves and asset management. The more immediate NHL moves are still debatable, but the asset management has been very, very strong.